I don't entirely see how you actually address the existence and smoothness question posed by the Clay Math institute. Perhaps you do somewhere on your forum or website that you could provide a link to?
I don't entirely see how you actually address the existence and smoothness question posed by the Clay Math institute. Perhaps you do somewhere on your forum or website that you could provide a link to?
@93MickyD1 Partly true, Claymath require a kind of general community acceptance rather than me just putting my thoughts to video. Though my videos have been up a few years they are not accepted therefore no money. Not that I'm in it for the money, it's just that you mentioned it.
@93MickyD1 Not according to Claymath, their rules state that a theory must gain general worldwide acceptance and approval for 2 years before they will consider paying
The equations have not been solved by any means, theorems of existence and unicity have been proved for these dimensions you've mentioned (1 & 2). The great question is, there exist an solution that continually depends on the initial conditions at ALL time, for the 3-dimensional case?
Anyway, this subject is far more complex then it looks. I've been studying it for 3 years now, and I still only know just a little bit of a very small piece of one of its ramifications.
EdRanger, it doesn't appear to make sense as my approach is three pronged, not singular. It makes sense but it also doesn't make sense and neutral. This is my approach for a theory of everything as you'll see from my other videos and my websites. My reason for making this video is to show how my theory works, not to explain or try to understand in detail the finer points of fluid mechanics and mathematics.
You're off your rocker dude. It appears as though you know almost nothing about Navier-Stoke, mathematics or science in general. Leave the philosophizing to those who have taken an honest effort to understand. You seem more interested in spewing psuedo-science fluff. Just stop it.
It all ties in with my whole body of work towards a theory of everything, thanks for your comment though as if I'm coming across incorrectly on this video now at least people know. If you look at the related videos list my remake of this video is number 6 :)
My point is that there are three simultaneous potentials to smoothness and when I suggested that they haven't yet found a solution in three dimensions this was what I was getting at. The equations have been 'solved' in 1 and 2 dimensions but not unchangingly in 3. This is because 3 is the magic number in my opinion, 3 dimensions requires 3 solutions and not just 1.
Saying the equations have been solved is misleading. You can solve for the flow around simple shapes in 1D and 2D but there are plenty of shapes that still need to be solved numerically, which is how we do it in the 3 dimensional case.
That's not the way that I understand it, I know it's a case of smoothness also but as far as I know there is not a three dimensional solution. Please take a look at my forum in the video description if you'd like to discuss this further :)
so it doesn't seem like you understand the issue with navier-stokes equations. it's not that they haven't found solutions in 3-dimensional space - they can compute these readily - it's that they have been unable to prove that smooth solutions always exist.
Please post the link to your forum? I cant find it anywhere, but I'm really interested in learning more and I want to ask some questions. Cheers mate! :)
Hi, I'm a training electronics engineer but I'm really interested in learning about these equations, and am currently studying linear algebra, and multivariable calculus in my spare time so my maths is good enough to understand them. This video helped me to see a couple of things more completely but I'm gonna check the forums :) thanks!
Yes I'm sorry about the low volume on a lot of my videos, it's my camera I'm afraid. I do have a forum instead though if you fancy a discussion or have any questions, it's linked to in the video description :)
no offence, but this is complete and utter rubbish and has not been solved or properly addressed in anyway whatsoever
addictedtothatrush 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't entirely see how you actually address the existence and smoothness question posed by the Clay Math institute. Perhaps you do somewhere on your forum or website that you could provide a link to?
LithiosFlame 9 months ago
I don't entirely see how you actually address the existence and smoothness question posed by the Clay Math institute. Perhaps you do somewhere on your forum or website that you could provide a link to?
LithiosFlame 9 months ago
@93MickyD1 Partly true, Claymath require a kind of general community acceptance rather than me just putting my thoughts to video. Though my videos have been up a few years they are not accepted therefore no money. Not that I'm in it for the money, it's just that you mentioned it.
protheory 10 months ago
@93MickyD1 Not according to Claymath, their rules state that a theory must gain general worldwide acceptance and approval for 2 years before they will consider paying
protheory 10 months ago
you look like david gilmour
spicyvOHMitsnack 11 months ago
lets face it ; you have no idea lol
x1x2x3ct 1 year ago
@x1x2x3ct Thanks for all the details, same empty comments as per usual
protheory 1 year ago
@x1x2x3ct Really a waste of time, should be deleted.
Catloraine 11 months ago
The equations have not been solved by any means, theorems of existence and unicity have been proved for these dimensions you've mentioned (1 & 2). The great question is, there exist an solution that continually depends on the initial conditions at ALL time, for the 3-dimensional case?
Anyway, this subject is far more complex then it looks. I've been studying it for 3 years now, and I still only know just a little bit of a very small piece of one of its ramifications.
Very intriguing subject.
felipenfranco 1 year ago
EdRanger, it doesn't appear to make sense as my approach is three pronged, not singular. It makes sense but it also doesn't make sense and neutral. This is my approach for a theory of everything as you'll see from my other videos and my websites. My reason for making this video is to show how my theory works, not to explain or try to understand in detail the finer points of fluid mechanics and mathematics.
protheory 3 years ago
this makes no sense, you clearly no nothing about any of the fundamentals of fluid mechanics, or apparently, mathematics in general.
EdRanger 3 years ago
You're off your rocker dude. It appears as though you know almost nothing about Navier-Stoke, mathematics or science in general. Leave the philosophizing to those who have taken an honest effort to understand. You seem more interested in spewing psuedo-science fluff. Just stop it.
kiaranr 4 years ago
It all ties in with my whole body of work towards a theory of everything, thanks for your comment though as if I'm coming across incorrectly on this video now at least people know. If you look at the related videos list my remake of this video is number 6 :)
protheory 4 years ago
My point is that there are three simultaneous potentials to smoothness and when I suggested that they haven't yet found a solution in three dimensions this was what I was getting at. The equations have been 'solved' in 1 and 2 dimensions but not unchangingly in 3. This is because 3 is the magic number in my opinion, 3 dimensions requires 3 solutions and not just 1.
protheory 4 years ago
Saying the equations have been solved is misleading. You can solve for the flow around simple shapes in 1D and 2D but there are plenty of shapes that still need to be solved numerically, which is how we do it in the 3 dimensional case.
sjh7132 2 years ago
That's not the way that I understand it, I know it's a case of smoothness also but as far as I know there is not a three dimensional solution. Please take a look at my forum in the video description if you'd like to discuss this further :)
protheory 4 years ago
so it doesn't seem like you understand the issue with navier-stokes equations. it's not that they haven't found solutions in 3-dimensional space - they can compute these readily - it's that they have been unable to prove that smooth solutions always exist.
ihateuutube 4 years ago
Thanks for your interest in my work, I just have a lot of ideas and this is a really old video. I've just messaged you with the link to my forum :)
protheory 4 years ago
Please post the link to your forum? I cant find it anywhere, but I'm really interested in learning more and I want to ask some questions. Cheers mate! :)
bertazoid 4 years ago
Hi, I'm a training electronics engineer but I'm really interested in learning about these equations, and am currently studying linear algebra, and multivariable calculus in my spare time so my maths is good enough to understand them. This video helped me to see a couple of things more completely but I'm gonna check the forums :) thanks!
bertazoid 4 years ago
Yes I'm sorry about the low volume on a lot of my videos, it's my camera I'm afraid. I do have a forum instead though if you fancy a discussion or have any questions, it's linked to in the video description :)
protheory 4 years ago
I think it might have been interesting if I would have been able to hear your voice...
48acar19 4 years ago